while we're on "scalability", any thoughts on needs/plans for 64-bit PG? -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Marlowe Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:19 PM To: lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Postgres vs Firebird? On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 13:48, Benjamin Smith wrote: > As a long-time user of Postgres, (First started using it at 7.0) I'm > reading > recently that Firebird has been taking off as a database. > > Perhaps this is not the best place to ask this, but is there any > compelling > advantage to using Firebird over Postgres? We have a large database (almost > 100 tables of highly normalized data) heavily loaded with foreign keys and > other constraints, and our application makes heavy use of transactions. > > I say this as my company's growth has been exponential, showing no > sign of > letting up soon, and I'm reviewing clustering and replication technologies so > that we can continue to scale as nicely as we have to date with our single > server. (now with a load avg around .30 typically) With some of the changes Tom recently made in the code in CVS, PostgreSQL now looks capable of scaling to >4 CPUS (somewhere between 8 and 12 is where things start to drop off suddenly) while for firebird, handling >1 CPU is a relatively recent development. I'd say try them both, benchmark them, and see what you think. But keep in mind that you really need to use a 4+ CPU machine to get a feel for the scalability of both in a large server environment. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
